Re: INFO Framework: Tags

On Nov 20, 2008, at 12:32 PM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote:

> You seem to be arguing that packages themselves may need to have  
> option
> tags, rather than the extension itself, which does not answer the
> question I asked.
>

That is not my intent. I'm talking about the use of option tags to say  
"Yes, I support the concept of info-packages" vs "I do not support the  
concept of info-packages".

> What I asked was whether there was a need to have an option tag
> specifically for the info-package extension.

yes, and that's what I tied to answer.

> There were no option tags for pre package info behaviour, so there  
> is no
> information to tell you that if I don't support the new extension  
> that I
> supported the previous incarnation of INFO. So I do not see how that  
> can
> be used for fallback.

If I don't support info-packages, then I MIGHT support old-info. If I  
do, then I MIGHT understand an INFO (or the legacy set), and I MIGHT  
send you one (from the legacy set). But I'm very, very unlikely to  
understand any of the new CID-indirection-to-select-a-body, multiple- 
body stuff, so don't send it!

--
Dean

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email protected] for questions on current sip
Use [email protected] for new developments on the application of sip